All posts by admin

Life of the Self-Proclaimed Comfort Women after Motherland Liberation

日本語/Japanese 】【 英語English PDF 】【 日本語Japanese PDF

July 30, 2020

Hidemi Nagao

( Former Civil and Media Liaison Officer of the Commander U.S. Naval Forces, Japan, Novelist and Non-fiction Writer )

Life of the Self-Proclaimed Comfort Women after Motherland Liberation

  1. Repentance

I would like to repent my unilateral preconception.

It has been several years since I got interested in the comfort women issue of the wartime.  When I read books of hilarious episodes written by Seiji Yoshida and Kako Senda, the Asahi Shimbun, a Japanese daily, had already retracted over a dozen articles regarding Yoshida’s fictions.  I, therefore, did not side with a claim that the Japanese authorities had abducted 200,000 women to make them work as sexual slaves in warfront.  Though I dare not deny some cases in which brokers trafficked women from both Japan and the Korean Peninsula to warfront.  I consider the cases as exceptions in the days when the prostitution license system was in place.

I authored a few books and opinion pieces since early 2019 in which I specifically discussed personality of the self-proclaimed comfort women in Korea.1  It is because I thought they had their “self” divided and lost their personality by becoming a group icon of the human rights violation issue.

My focus on personality of those women derives from what Mahatma Gandhi said about one’s belief and personality.

“Carefully watch your thoughts, for they become your words.  Manage and watch your words, for they will become your actions.  Consider and judge your actions, for they have become your habits.  Acknowledge and watch your habits, for they shall become your values.  Understand and embrace your values, for they become your destiny.”

Ordinary people always question themselves who they are and for what and for whom they live.  The struggle of questioning makes them strengthen their belief, which translates into action and builds personality.  This is what personal growth is about.

Life of people begins with a period of education and proceeds to a period of work prior to reaching a period of retirement.  The self-proclaimed women had to enter the period of work, being deprived of a full period of education partly due to family poverty and partly due to the inadequate education system.  What awaited them in the period of retirement—after the long period of work—was the comfort women issue.

As I reflected on a span of their life, I have realized that my thoughts were unilateral.  For, I discussed their personality without paying any attention to their long period of work.

On May 7, 2020, Lee Yong-soo broke the ice, which led to uncovering of dubious spending practices of the Korean Council for Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery by Japan (Korean Council hereinafter) regarding comfort women donations and government subsidies.  Lee also publicly said she had detested the pronominal phrase, “Sexual Slave.”  A while later, some intellectuals began to question anew what those women truly needed for their life.

Based on the circumstances above and my carelessness, I will review the life of the self-proclaimed comfort women after the liberation of their homeland.  This is what I meant by repentance.  Problem is I cannot read or speak the Korean language though I have just made a solemn pledge.  To compensate for my inability, I carefully review herein translated versions of those women’s testimonies that are contained in books below.

Book A: The Korean Council for the Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery by Japan and the Study Committee on the Volunteer Corps (Ed.). (1993). “Shogen: Kyosei Renko Sareta Chosenjin Gun Ianfu Tachi” [Testimonies of comfort women forcibly taken by the military] (author translation). (The Uri-Yeoseong Network on Military Comfort Women Issues, Trans.). Tokyo. Akashi Publishing.  Book A contains 19 testimonies.

Book BI and BII: Nishino, Rumiko & Kim, Puja. Women’s Active Museum on War and Peace (Ed.) (2006, 2010). “Shogen: Mirai heno Kioku Asia ‘Ianfu’ Shogenshu Parts I & II—Minami-Kita Zainichi Koreans” [Collection of Witness Statements of Asian Comfort Women, Memories for Future Regarding North and South Korea and Japan] (a/t). Tokyo. Akashi Publishing.  Book BI and BII contains 26 testimonies, 5 of which are copied from Book A.

  1. Questions to Books A and BI & BII

Each testimony is about 15 to 18 pages long on the average.  The experiences of the self-proclaimed comfort women, as sexual slaves, are fully detailed, regardless of the credibility of the testimonies.  I have a few questions about them.  I provide the following excerpts as a premise of my misgivings (underlined by author).

Yun Chung-ok, Co-representative of the Korean Council, wrote in Preface of Book A (author translation, a/t hereinafter):

“It is urgent for us to reveal the whole truth.  Materials found in newspapers and official documents are certainly important, however, testimonies of the former comfort women are no less important than those materials.  They are living witnesses of those days with both physical and mental disorders.  …  We are aware how difficult it is for them to reveal what really happened at comfort stations.  But the issue we have on hand is a serious matter that pertains to human beings.  …  I think we must get their life stories down on paper.”

Professor An Byeong-jik of the Economic Faculty of the Seoul University wrote in Forward also in Book A (a/t):

“While reviewing investigation results, we found it most difficult to reconstruct one’s testimonies because what she had said was oftentimes logically contradictory.  …  The most annoying thing the investigators experienced was when they noticed the interviewees intentionally distorting facts.  To overcome such cases, each of us tried hard to build confidence with each interviewee.  Our efforts were rewarded in most cases, however, there were cases in which investigators had to quit interviewing halfway through.

              We conducted an interview more than five or six times for each woman.

              I do not claim our investigations are flawless.  For, as in the case of comfort women, I think it difficult for anyone who was treated as a subhuman to narrate everything she had gone through.  I also think it impossible for us to complete investigations in a short time (*underlined by author).”

2.1.        Investigations of Book A heard stories of 40 women though as many as 110 women were registered as former comfort women in the early days.  The Korean Council published testimonies of only 19 women.  This may be attributable to “logical contradictions” and “intentional distortions of facts” Professor An mentioned.  No one, however, explained why the published accounts were reduced from 110 to 40 to 19.  Does it mean the rest, 91, were not comfort women?

2.2.        This question also relates to the “intentional distortions of facts.”  Why did those women dare not tell facts?  Having female investigators interview them, building confidence with them, and holding interviews more than a few times should have made it possible for them to come out of their shell.  Besides, they knew their testimonies were supposed to protect women’s rights and, furthermore, pursue social justice.

2.3.        Six of the 19 women used pseudonyms in Book A.  Why did five of them have their photographic portraits shown on the first page of their testimonies?

2.4.        Five testimonies in Book B are copied, word for word, from Book A.  Does it mean 14 others in Book A are not trustworthy?  Either way, the total number of the women in both Book A and Book BI and BII is not 45 but 40.  It must be noted there are two different women whose names are identical.

2.5.        Why did the investigators not prepare a list of key issues in advance?  It is vital to reveal the whole truth—as Professor Yun mentioned—by organizing key issues by category.  Putting things in order would have visualize not only the how and why the women became comfort women but also the how and under what system they made a living at each comfort station in warfront.  It is unfortunate that the testimonies portrayed a litany of complaints because the investigators were merely in listen-only mode toward the women.  There are cases in which time and place remained unknown.  The significance of the “living witnesses” emphasized by Professor Yun did not bear fruit, if not wasted.

Books BI and BII compiled more than a decade after Book A was published did not correct the inadequacy of systematic approaches observed in Book A.  As for the inadequacy mentioned above, O Yon-ju, one of the editors, made the following comment (Book BI, pp. 237-238) (*underlined by author).

“Stories I heard from a halmoni (*grandmother in Korean) sounded like reading a prepared statement written in a concise and orderly manner.  She narrated each event, following closely the passage of time.  I interviewed her four times; she repeated her accounts almost in the same way.  In the meantime, her memories began to bother me because they had been fixed in a certain pattern.  I sort of struggled to find out means to make her talk about other things.

              I was compelled, during an interview, to ask questions to change the set flow of her thoughts.  Giving up listening to her experience, I decided to start questioning her about general ideas of things or about her emotional conditions.”

2.6.        Both Books A and BI and BII failed to make a comprehensive conclusion to the key issues listed below.

(1) The difference between comfort stations in warfront and brothels in Korea, Taiwan, Manchuria—which were internationally recognized as under Japanese rule—and Japan.  Those in the latter were Pusan (Korea), Hsinchu (Taiwan), Jilin (Manchuria), and Osaka/Toyama/Okinawa (Japan).

(2) The presence or absence of the following matters: trade of women by parents, family members, or husbands (Kim Hak-sun, Hwang Geum-Joo, Lee Yong-nyeo, Park Sun-e, Lee Gye-wol, Lee Ok-pun); identification papers (Park You-nian); term of employment (Lee Sang-ok of South Korea, Park Sun-e); earnings (Lee Sang-ok of South Korea, Park You-nian, Kim Sun-ok); savings and transfer of money home (Moon Ok-chu, Park Sun-e, Park You-nian, Ha Sang-suk); exchange of correspondence (Moon Ok-chu, Park Do-ri, Gil Won-ok); and liberty restrictions such as going for shopping and watching movies (O O-mok, Moon Ok-chu, Lee Tok-nam, Park Do-ri).

(3) Those cases in which the Koreans brokered and accompanied Korean women to warfront and ran comfort stations for themselves.  As Lt. Col. Archie Miyamoto, Lt. Col. of the U.S. Army (Ret.), wrote by referencing Japan’s Foreign Ministry consulate documents, it is the Koreans who managed comfort stations with Korean women while it is the Japanese who operated comfort stations with Japanese women.2

  1. Limitations of the investigations and stretched interpretations

Commercial publication of Book A brought about a result that 19 women represented 110 women who stood up at the beginning, 239 women who were officially registered by the South Korean government, and finally 200,000 women whom more than a few individuals and groups claim.  In this sense, the Korean Council achieved its objective.

The Japanese mass media often conduct public opinion polls.  They normally consider confidence interval and confidence level of a population, randomly contact approximately 2,000 persons, and come up with representative opinions based on the collect responses from 50% or so of the surveyed,

In the case of the self-proclaimed comfort women, the 40 women in Books A and BI and BII are not randomly sampled from a population of, say, 110, 239, or 200,000.  Their testimonies, therefore, contain sample coverage bias.  Because those 40 women independently comprise the whole population for themselves, it should not be stretched to interpret that they are a part of all other comfort women.  What it points to is the limitation of the investigations.

As for the stereotypical statement of those 40 women that they had been treated as subhuman, it should be merely interpreted as their claim because of lack of testimonial evidence provided by third parties.   It is, therefore, appropriate—from the vantage point of a big picture—to conclude that many a woman in Books A and BI and BII fell victim to malicious brokers and operators of comfort stations/brothels.

  1. Life of the self-proclaimed comfort women in post-liberation days

Those 40 women gave, in a greater or lesser degree, their accounts of life after the Korean Peninsula was liberated.  There is no reason to question the credibility of their accounts.  For, adding the “illogical contradictory statements and distortion of facts” to their post-liberation days would not serve as any corroborating evidence to accuse the Japanese government.

The investigators seem to have paid some attention to the women’s life at the time of the interviews.  Their assumption was probably that those women were living a life tougher than common women were because of their sufferings in the past.

4.1.        Historical background of the Korean Peninsula

The Allied Powers defeated Japan in August 1945, which liberated the Korean peninsula from Japan’s rule.  The conflicts of interest of the Allied Powers, however, divided the peninsula into South Korea and North Korea over the 38th parallel.  North Korea proceeded under the totalitarian regime while South Korea tried to build a democratic system.  The Korean War broke out and continued for three years from 1950 till the armistice agreement was signed in 1953.  The Koreans, as a result, could not freely cross the north-south border.  It was since mid-1960s when South Korea began to enter a high economic growth period under President Park Chun-hee.  Though the president was assassinated in 1970s, the nation was committed to democratization from 1980s.  The democratization provided women with opportunities to voice their opinion.

4.2.        Periods as comfort women, time of returning home, and marriage and childbirth

Table (1) below shows testimonial data of the periods as comfort women and the year they returned home as well as their marriage and childbirth.

4.2.1.    Periods as comfort women

The self-proclaimed comfort women left home after being traded for money, by deception, or for making money.  The periods they were at comfort stations or brothels vary from two months to a half year for the shortest, nine years for the longest, with the average of approximately three years and four months.  More than a few of them stayed where they were after the motherland liberation, some of whom got repatriated decades later.

4.2.2.    Marriage and childbirth

Most of the women who stayed single were strongly ashamed of their blemished virginity and chastity as Yun Do-ri and Jang Soo-wol narrated.  Their belief is probably nurtured by Confucian values to respect one’s husband and parents that had been prevailing since the days of Joseon Dynasty which was characterized by the Yangban class and patriarchy.  Misogyny, however, was generally observed both in Japan and other nations while chastity was imposed upon women.

Those who stayed single were 20% of the total women (8÷40╳100).  This rate seems to be higher in comparison of Japan’s national census statistics of 2015: Men is 23.4% and Women 14.1%.

Their enduring hardships under foreign sky did not necessarily make them distrust for men.  Those women were young when they returned home.  Quite a few of them were encouraged by their families and neighbors to get married.  29 women found their spouses or partners to live with.

As for an infertility rate among couples, it is generally believed to be about 10%.  A 2015 survey done by Japan’s National Institute of Population and Social Security and Research indicates as many as 29.3% of them were concerned about their infertility.  It may not be appropriate to compare the situation of decades ago to today, those women’s infertility rate comes to approximately 27.5%.  This rate does not draw a quick conclusion that their infertility is attributable to their employment practice; most of them claim they had tended to as many as 20 to 30 men a day.  Yet, 11 of them had become pregnant and delivered babies more than once.

12 of them adopted children regardless of the presence of partners.  It is believed to be attributable to their maternal instinct and their want of a social life structure.  That fact should be understood as noteworthy and socially commendable despite the social turmoil they went through after the liberation of the motherland.

Married, concubine, or cohabitation: 29 (excepting marriages prior to becoming comfort women; one of them only lived with a partner)

Single: 8
Unknown: 3

Childbirths: 11
Infertile: 8 (including one miscarriage)
A husband went missing immediately after marriage: 1
Unknown: 3

Adoption of children: 12

Table (1)

Book A:

  1. Kim Hak-sun: For 3 months till fall of 1941; married, one daughter and one son; returned home in June 1946
  1. Kim Tok-jin: 1937-1940 (February or March); returned home a month or so later; concubine, two sons and one daughter
  1. Lee Yon-suk: 1939 (December)-1945 (August); returned home in January1946; co-habitation, infertile, divorced
  1. Ha Sun-nyeo: 1940 (or 1938)-1942; returned home in 1946; co-habitation
  1. O O-mok: 1937-1945; returned home in 1945; married to a widower, infertile, divorced, adopted a girl
  1. Hwang Geum-Joo: 1941-1945; returned home in early December 1945; single, adopted three orphans
  1. Moon Bil-gi: 1943-1945; returned home in August 1945; concubine, reared younger sister’s grandchild
  1. Lee Yong-soo: 1945 (January)-1945 (August); returned home in 1946; married in 1989, divorced
  1. Lee Ok-pun: 1942-1945 (August); returned home in 1947; single
  1. Moon Ok-chu: 1940-1941, 1942 (July)-1945 (August); returned home in 1945; married twice, adopted the former husband’s son
  1. Lee Sun-ok: Married and divorced before 1938, 1938-1944; returned home in early 1945; cohabitation
  1. Lee Sang-ok: 1936-1942; returned home in December 1946; married, miscarried
  1. Lee Tok-nam: 1939-1942; returned home in 1945; Single, adopted younger sister’s child
  1. Lee Yong-nyeo: 1942-1945; returned home in April 1946; cohabitation, infertile, adopted her partner’s son
  1. Kim Te-son: 1944 (November-December); returned home in 1945; cohabitation, two daughters
  1. Park Sun-e: Married and delivered a son before 1942, traded by her husband; 1942-end of 1943; returned home in January 1944; married, three children
  1. Choi Myong-sun: 1945 (January-July); returned home in 1945; married, one son, remarried, three daughters and a son
  1. Kang Duk-kyung: 1944 (fall)-1945 (August); one child before 1945; returned home in January 1946; single
  1. Yun Do-ri: 1943 (September)-1945 (August); did not leave Pusan; single

Book BI:

  1. Park Yong-sim: 1938 (August)-1944 (September); returned to North Korea; married, infertile, adopted an orphan
  1. Song Sin-do: Married before 1938, four children before 1945, 1938-1945; went to Miyagi, Japan; lived with a partner
  1. Kim Hak-sun (*mentioned earlier)
  1. Lee Gye-wol: 1937-1939 (March); returned to North Korea at the end of 1940; single, adopted a child
  1. Kak Kim-nyeo: 1939 (fall)-1941 (November); went to North Korea; married, a child
  1. Park Do-ri: 1940-1945; returned home in 1945; concubine, married later, a son and three daughters
  1. Kim Yon-suk: 1940-1945 (spring); returned to North Korea in 1945; married, infertile
  1. Hwang Geum-Joo (*mentioned earlier)
  1. Park Ok-son: 1941-1945; went to north of North Korea; married, a daughter and a son; returned home in 2001
  1. Lee Ok-son: 1943-1945; returned home in 2000; immediately after marriage, her husband went missing
  1. Moon Bil-gi (*mentioned earlier)
  1. Kang Duk-kyung (*mentioned earlier)

Book BII:

  1. Park You-nian: 1938 (August)-1945; returned home to North Korea in March 1946; cohabitation, a son, adopted a few girls, cohabitation again
  1. Sim Dar-om: 1939-1940, 1940-1945; returned home later; unknown
  1. Gil Won-ok: 1940-1941, 1941-1945; returned home after 1945; married, left home; cohabitation, adopted a child
  1. Moon Ok-chu (*mentioned earlier)
  1. Jang Soo-wol: 1941 (September)-1945 (June); returned home in North Korea before August 1945; single
  1. Kim Bok-dong: 1941-1945; returned home after August 1945; married, infertile, re-married
  1. Kim Gun-ja: 1942 (March)-1945; returned home after August 1945; cohabitation
  1. Kim Sol-an: 1944-1945; returned home after August 1945; married, three sons, divorced, re-married, six abortions
  1. Lee Sang-ok: 1943-fled before 1945 (?); lived in North Korea after 1945; unknown
  1. Kang Il-chul: 1944-1945; lived in Jilin after August 1945; married, a son; re-married, a daughter and two sons; returned home in 2000
  1. Lee Jong-nyeo: 1943 (July)-1945; lived in North Korea after August 1945; unknown
  1. Pei Pong-gi: Married twice before 1944; 1944-1945 (March); lived in Okinawa thereafter; single
  1. Ha Sang-suk: 1944 (May)-1945; lived in China after August 1945; cohabitation, infertile, cohabitation again, married, infertile
  1. Kim Sun-ok: 1943-1945 (?); lived in China after August 1945; returned home in 2005; married, two daughters and a son; re-married, two daughters, adopted a boy

4.3.        Occupations

Almost all self-proclaimed comfort women returned home in the Korean Peninsula after the motherland liberation, excepting a few who stayed under foreign sky.  Some found their families at home while others discovered they were gone.  A few of them took up jobs after landing in Pusan and Inchon to bring home some money.  Many of them changed jobs frequently.  Some of them seriously succeeded in their business by settling down in one place.  One lost her fortune later as she became a debt guarantor for a friend.  Many a woman took up homemaking after finding her partner.  It is true that they got through painful hardships up until 1990s.  I dare say, at the risk of offending some people, the way they lived deserves great praise.  Following is a list of occupations they had.

Trafficking heroin, contraband, and U.S. dollars; selling American commodity goods and insurance policies; peddling clothes, fish, and groceries; running pubs, restaurants, a general store, a boarding house, food stalls, and an inn; working as employees of pubs, restaurants, factories, farms, and cooperative farms; becoming housemaids and live-in housemaids, a singer, a nurse, Kisaeng, a lumberjack, and a prostitute for U.S. troops.

A sidebar comment is nine of the South Koreans were welfare recipients at the time of the investigations.  Two of the six who live in North Korea seem also to be on welfare.

  1. Memories of their life

Provided below are several comments the self-proclaimed comfort women made toward life.  It is regrettable the investigators failed to characterize the women’s personalities.  Relevant descriptions not longer than several lines.  Their thoughts, endorsed and enriched by strong will and long experience, might have provided men and women of all ages with valuable insights. (*Underlined by author)

Kim Tok-jin: “The Japanese should be blamed but I hate much more those Koreans who became their pawn.  I have a lot to say to our government, which must compensate for us.”

Lee Yon-suk: “Not only the Japanese but also the Koreans trampled one another to go on living.  Both are to be blamed.  …  I am not concerned about getting reparations.  For, I may go away tomorrow.”

Hwang Geum-Joo: “My wish is to live an independent life until the end while not being ignored by others and at the same time offering assistance for the people in hardship.”

Lee Tok-nam: “People are supposed to live by accepting their fate.  They will lose happiness of today if they have eyes bigger than one’s stomach.  I no longer entertain a big dream.  When I was young, I had a bad temper.  Because I spent my younger days there (*Southeast Asia), I am reluctant to meet people.  All I want now is to lead a quiet life.”

Kim Te-son: “I think that all the sufferings are attributable to sins of our ancestors.  It is because of the poverty of our country in which we were born.  Even if I was married when I was young, I might have become a comfort woman in one way or another.  It is fate that I was born in those days.”

Park Sun-e: “I made public my past experiences because I thought it would be of service to my country.  Our people must never be enslaved by a foreign country again.”

Yun Do-ri: “I would like to be born again as a woman.  It would be nice for me to study hard under the good care of parents, to get married to a good man, and to bear a child.”

Sim Dar-om: “The Buddha statue on the altar truly evokes a profound sense of wonder.  It gives me everyday wisdom of this and that.  I can live a good life day after day because the Buddha makes me act like a human and gives me an opportunity to get along with other people.”

Gil Won-ok: About her adoption of a boy a stranger gave a birth to, “I am deeply indebted to Lord for my son whom I raised to make him go to the graduate school of a college of theology.”

Kim Sol-an: “My (*second) husband is a college graduate.  He said he would not mind it (*after I had my elder sister disclosed my past to him).  He said what had happened in the past would not matter any longer.  I thought in my heart that one who studied hard are different from others.”

Kang Il-chul: “Those licensed prostitutes went to warfront to earn money.  We were forced to go there.”

Ha Sang-suk: “I worked at a cotton-spinning company in China from 1962 to about ten years ago.  I was mentioned in the newspaper as a model employee.  I worked hard because I did not want the Chinese to consider the Koreans were incapable of doing work.  I was awarded in 1992 for having a happy family.”

A sidebar comment:  Kang Duk-kyung studied painting after she moved in the House of Sharing in 1992.

  1. The Korean Council policies and a personal comment

The personal life of those self-proclaimed comfort women was probably a secondary matter for the Korean Council that had a social cause to criticize Japan.  As mentioned earlier, nine of those women were on welfare when their testimonies were published.  Many researchers would probably lose no time in asserting, “It is their experience of the past that brought about their welfare status of today.  That is why a hard blow of justice must be delivered to the perpetrators.”  Have the council’s campaigns with great public fanfare really improved their circumstances?  Had rationing a portion of the donated money and setting up the House of Sharing sufficiently satisfied those women?

Tsukasa Yajima, the House’s employee in charge of international affairs, blew the whistle to the Kyodo News on May 28, 2020 that the donated money had not properly been used for the women in the house.  He wrote in 2005 an interesting observation about the life of nine women as follows (Book BI, pp. 255-257).  What Yajima narrated is, in no way, a case of improvement of their situations.

“A verbal brawl takes place among them over small things, which is the clash of their egos.  Visitors who come to the House often comment each woman appears like any ordinary grandma.  I would say all of them are fearless and greedy, not to mention making underhanded tricks more than anyone else does.  It is true everyone is two-faced.  But when you encounter the women’s hidden nature, you would find them extremely uncomfortable and musing, at the same time.”

At the beginning, the Korean Council campaigns were supposed to consist of the two pillars below, which operated as the two wheels of a cart.

(1) To pursue actions to demand Japan to take responsibilities for the comfort women

(2) To provide psychological and material support for those women

The Korean Council encouraged those women to take part in the Wednesday demonstrations in the nation, took them overseas to attend unveiling ceremonies of comfort women cenotaphs and statues, and arranged them to take the congressional and assembly witness stands.  It is true that the council, by making public the women’s past, could appeal human rights violations not only to Japan but also to the world.  The pillar (1) has been partially successful.

Concerning the comfort women issue itself, Professor Chin Sung-Chung of the Seoul University said as follows in an opinion piece titled ‘In Seeking Concrete Solutions for the Victims’ (Book BII, pp. 381).

“It is the social conditions of war, racial prejudice, and patriarchy that brought forth the comfort women system.  Eliminating them will be the fundamental solution to the problem.”

The three factors Professor Chin mentioned—metaphysical in some way—are concisely reviewed: (a) War breaks out of conflicts of interest as history has seen.  Therefore, it is not necessarily rightful to blame Japan alone from a geopolitical point of view.  (b) The racial prejudice Professor Chin mentioned is a criticism against Japan that colonized the Korean Peninsula and treated the Koreans as the second class citizens for the Japanese.  The Western Powers exploited local people wherever they were in the modern age of colonial imperialism.  This fact would be no excuse for Japan.  (c) Patriarchy continued in every corner of the world into modern times.  It exerted profound influence especially over the Koreans as a legacy of the Yi Dynasty rule for five centuries.  It is not quite reasonable to blame Japan for patriarchy.  It goes without saying that the comfort women system did not originate in the peninsula; the system must be understood as having evolved around prostitution in Japan from the 17th century.

Having said that, I believe what Professor Chin meant above should be interpreted as a future agendum for the Korean Council.  Accordingly, his suggestion should not be identified with the pillar (1).

What about the pillar (2)?  As far as their well-being is concerned, it is not necessarily true that the Korean Council has satisfied those women’s psychological and material needs while they were in the retirement period.  It has controlled their behaviors and decision-making.  It has divided their personality by elevating them to a group icon.  In other words, those women have become a tool of the intellectuals without being provided any opportunity to pride themselves with their own insights into life.

Both a sincere person and an insincere person are remembered in history.  It is the former not the latter the public will appraise.  The Korean Council with a wrong judgement has left a major stain that cannot be wiped off.  It is anyone’s guess how this incident regarding accounting irregularities comes to an end.  The Korean Council must be back to square one and earnestly and seriously review the pillar (2) so that it can kickstart what needs to be done for those women.  Time is running short.

“The whole truth” sounds nice, however, “Covering the truth” is a shameful act.

A last note: Those who committed human rights violations must be held accountable. It is Japan’s expansion of the theater of operations that prompted the Korean women to take on prostitution business in warfront after the introduction of the licensed prostitution system by Japan to the Korean Peninsula in 1916. The system—that imposed a variety of duties upon comfort station managers to protect the comfort women’s right—was, none the less, something that tacitly gave an approval to human trade. It follows that the Japanese government was not faultless at the time. It is not appropriate, nevertheless, to criticize the system from today’s point of view. As for the “subhuman treatments” the self-proclaimed comfort women narrated, it is reasonable to blame greedy comfort station/brothel managers for business malpractices.

***************************************

Note 1: “Discourses on Terminologies Related to the Comfort Women (Licensed Prostitutes)” of April 2019, “My Thoughts on Film Shusenjo” of March 2010, “Korean Puzzle” of April 2020, “Development of the Seigiren Clatter” of June 2020, and “Outcry of Lee Yong-soo, the Self-Proclaimed Comfort Woman” of June 2020.

Note 2: Miyamoto, Archie. (2017). Wartime Military Records on Comfort Women. 2d Edition. Amazon Fulfillment, pp. 37-39

国連クマラスワミ報告書、マックドゥーガル報告書、全部嘘なんです!

youtube 反日銅像撤去デモシリーズPart18 (2020年6月23日)
「 国史教科書研究所  金柄憲所長の講座3 嘘の根本を探る!」
から、日本語訳の文字起こしをご紹介します。

「大韓民国は嘘の天国だ
嘘の天国がアメリカの議会、ヨーロッパの議会
国連の人権委員会まで犯した
物凄い実力の嘘の専門家達の集団だ」

韓国の国史教科書研究所の金柄憲所長の言葉です。

ここまで言いきって下さいました。
是非ご覧ください。

<動画 日本語訳 文字起こし>

皆さん、こんにちは。
チャンネルFujichanの宮本です。

今回のテーマは金柄憲所長の「最大限の嘘を暴く!」です。
(UNクマラスワミ報告書)

0:11~
今回は、さらに真実糾明の本質に迫ります。
これで問題の核心がはっきりと見えてきます。
今この瞬間と未来のため真実を見極める眼と心の
アンテナを高めていきましょう
-金柄憲所長登場-
0:34
クマラスワミ報告書が今の大韓民国の慰安婦問題の
核爆発だったんですよ。本当に!
そこから(クマラスワミ報告書)
すべてのことが我が国の慰安婦問題の歪曲とか
慰安婦問題を政治的利用をする根拠になったんですよ。これが!!
すべての根拠になってしまって、全ての問題をここに押し付けて、
UNが認めたんだ!
これで解決してしまうんです。
(それ以上何も言わなくてもいい。)
でも、これは全部嘘なんです!!
クマラスワミUN人権報告書、
そしてマクドゥーガル報告書

全部、嘘なんです!!

このようなクマラスワミの報告書
を理解するためには、
基本的に
その当時の慰安婦がどんな不義の人を通して
どんな過程を経てどうやってその場に行ったのか?

そこに行ったのは行ったんですが、
果たして彼女たちは皆
日本軍の慰安婦だったのか?
このようなことを
基本的に知らなければなりません。

今日は、とても初歩的なお話をします。
この慰安婦に対してしっかりと認識しないと
いけないんですが、
慰安婦は、、、
ここに書いてある字を
このまま消すとどうなりますか?

これですね。
これなんですか?

女性です。
女性。

男性はこう書きますね。

男がいますが、
私たちが今お話しをしようとするのは
女性ですね。

その当時、「国の主権喪失期」。
私は日帝強占期という言葉を使いません。
国権喪失期、

私たちの「国」という主権を喪失した時期、
1910年から1948年までですね。

1945年の解放以後は、国の主権が奪われたというより、
アメリカによって国の主権を喪失したのではなく、
日本統治(日帝)からの喪失がずーっと続いたんです。

よって1948年8月15日私たちが光復するまでは
私たちが国の主権が無く、私たちが外交権を
行使することができなく、

その当時の私たちの国は、人が生きていくということには
全てお金が関係してきますね。

その当時のこの国の経済活動は、
男たちは主にほとんど皆が労働市場に行くことでした。

何故?
学んだものが何もなかったし、
その次に
就職する場所がないんですね。

ところで女性たちは?
それなりに新女性も沢山いました。
小説を書いたり、
その当時の新聞、1920年から1930年を見たら、

私は小説家になりたい、小説を書いたけれど
これをどのように発表したらいいのか?

私は飛行機の操縦士になりたい。
そうしたらいのか?

このような悩み相談するのも新聞に沢山でてきます。

そして声楽家になりたい、教育者になりたい。
特に新聞の小説「常緑樹」
に出てくる蔡永信のような人も沢山
登場したんですね。

それは、極一部です。そのほかは田舎で農業をしたり、
重労働をしたり、

しかしそうしながらも、
解決することができないものがありました。
それが何ですか、即ち貧困ですね。

貧困

この貧しさのゆえに、お腹がすくから
人々は自分たちが願わない

意思とは関係ないところに
追い込まれてしまうんです。
今も同様です。

仕事に就けなく、貧しさで苦労すると
自分の意志とは関係なく追い込まれてしまうんです。

特に人権の死角地帯
奈落の世界に落ちてしまいます。

そうやってこの女性たちが
主に体を売る女性「娼」。
この道に落ちてしまう人たちは相当な数になりますが、

どうやってこの道に落ちてしまうのか?

結局はまず親が娘を売るんですね。

親が!
何故?
貧しさから抜け出るために。

親が売った場合もあったし、その次に義理の弟が
義理の姉を売る場合もあったし。
父親が娘を売ったこともあったし
母親が娘を売ったこともあったし、

新聞を見たら色々なことが出てきます。
はなはだしくは、嫁に行った娘を家に返って来いと言って
売り飛ばしてしまったケースもあったし、

その次に新婚旅行に行って帰ったら
お金が無くなってしまい
自分の妻を売った場合もあった、

そのような記事もあったんですね。

そのような場合が
非常によくないところに落ちてしまうですね。

その次に、「私についてきたらよいところに
就職出来て、裕福に暮らせいい服も着れるし
一緒に行こう!」

そうすると、田舎では何も知らないんです。
勉強もしていないし、この広い世間のことどうなっているか
何も知らないんです。

いい暮らしが出来て、綺麗な服が着れるから
皆が全部ついて行っちゃたんです。

その人がどんな人なのかも知らないんです。
でもついて行ってしまったんです。

そうやって、就職詐欺でついて行ってしまったんです。

このように2つの部類、親が売ったり就職詐欺で騙されたり
して、この方向に落ちて行ってしまうんです。

ここに落ちてしまって、では慰安婦とは何か?

ここからもう一度どこに行くのか?

国外に行くか、国内で活動する場合があります。

特にこちら(国外)は1930年以後、
日中戦争以後、

太平戦争の時、主に外国に行ったんです。
外国に行ったケースが大部分日本軍慰安婦ですが

そうだったら、日本軍慰安婦はどのような形で?
出て行けば全部が日本軍慰安婦だったのか?

このようにはっきりと見てみましょう。

これは駐屯地です。

駐屯地慰安所で、だから駐屯地慰安所と言うのは
日本軍が戦争をしながら山岳地帯
、民間人がほとんどいない地帯。

そのようなところに慰安所があるんですね。

だったら、駐屯地の慰安所は遠い僻地。
今でも軍の前線では民間人のいない場所がありますね。

ソウル市の周辺では首都警備司令部、首都防衛司令部
そのようなものがありますね。
そして色々な舞台がありますね。

民間人と近いところにある場合もあるんですね。

そして民間人たちがだんだん沢山いる地域があるんですね。

そうすると一番下に行けば
軍の駐屯地が何も無くただそれこそ遊郭

遊郭と言うのはただ慰楽施設です。
お酒をついだり、
結局ここでどんなことが起きたかと言うと、

売春行為が起きるんですね。
ここは事実上民間地域です。

なので上に行けば行くほど軍の管理が
だんだん厳格になっていくんです。

先ほど、外に出て行った慰安婦たちは
朝鮮人女性も多かったんですが
日本人女性もとても
多かったんです。

日本人女性が一番多かったんです。
朝鮮人女性も多く、その次に中国人
周辺の色々な人達。

その次にその現地の女性も
売春をする人がいるんです。

ここで駐屯地の慰安所では

厳格に管理がされていたんです。
厳格に!!なぜ?

この慰安所設立の目的自体が現地の女性に対する
強姦を防止し、

その次に軍人たちの性欲を解消するために
自然に軍の士気の害になる要素の
性病の防止が出来るんです。

この二つを徹底的に管理したんです。

軍人たちの軍紀が厳格に
管理されなければならないんですね。

なのでここ駐屯地、完全な駐屯地の慰安所では
慰安婦たちに対する管理も厳格だったし、
軍人たちに対する管理も厳格だったんです。

慰安所を運営する抱え主、
慰安所の主人に対する管理も厳格だったんです。

なので事実上こちらは周期的に
性病検査をしたんですね。

そして周期的に慰安所の主人たちは
慰安所を許可した軍部隊に毎日売り上げを
報告したんです。

そしてうちの慰安所には慰安婦が何人いた。
何人が病気になった。そして妊娠した人がいた。

これを全部報告するんです。

そしてここでは性病予防のために一般的に言われるサック
コンドームを必ず準備し使用するようになっていたんです。

もし軍人たちが慰安婦に対して暴力をふるって憲兵に
申告したら、憲兵は軍人を処罰したんです。

ところで、ここからだんだん下がってくるほど、
軍人たちの管理から離れていくんです。

軍人の管理から離れて行けばここでどんなことが
起きたでしょうか?

抱え主による人権侵害が生じてくるんです。

抱え主による!

この人たちは無所不在です。
女性たちは抱え主の何ですか?
自分達が営業の資産だと思っている慰安婦を
お金を買ったんです。

何ですか?投資をしたんです。
投資をしたので自分の利益を出さないといけないんです。

女性たちは人間ではなく商品だったんです。
(注、抱え主にとって)

なので女性たちがもし性病にかかって
仕事ができない場合はとてつもない虐待をしたんです。

そして言うことを聞かなかったら虐待し、
問題をおこしたら虐待し、

場合によっては同じ年の友達同士で
話もできないようにしました。

そして厳しく統制して逃げられないようにしました。

そうだったら、このクマラスワミ報告書に出てくる話は
慰安婦の証言集を見れば、どういう証言があるかというと

針を板の上に刺して女性をその上に
引きずったという話もあります。

もし駐屯地でこのような事件が起きたら
これは大変なことになるんですよ。

そして性病にかかった女性は
そのまま殺してしまうということなんです。

一日に70名殺したというのです。

そうだったら、果たしてこれが
駐屯地の慰安所で起きた事件なのでしょうか!?

そしてまたそのような証拠があるのか?
全く全然証拠がないんです!?

このクマラスワミ報告書にも
はきりと話しました。何の証拠もありません。
慰安婦の証言しかありません。

果たして、50年60年過ぎた証言を信じることが
できますか?

そしてその当時に残した自分たちの日記でもなく
日記でもありさえすれば信頼できますが

何もありません。

ではこれは誰がしたんですか?挺対協にいる人達が
対話して質問して返答を受けたんです。

それも再整理をしたんです。
信頼できますか?
出来ませんね。これ!

これは加工されたものです。

しかしながら、ここに出てくる証言は
特にファン・クムジュ(黄 錦周)という人、先ほどお話しましたが
606号の注射を受けたと!

606号注射が何ですか?
梅毒の治療剤じゃないですか?

それこそ画期的な梅毒の治療剤なのですが
ところがクマラスワミ証言集では
ファン・クムジュ(黄 錦周)氏が何と言ったかと
606号注射は避妊薬として出てきます。

606号注射をしたら妊娠できない!
妊娠した胎児をなくすことができると
このように書いてあるんですよ。

これなんですよ!

梅毒と妊娠は全く関係がないですね!
もちろん関係はあります。
梅毒にかかったら妊娠できなくなります。

でも606号注射が避妊の薬ではありません。
606号の注射が妊娠中絶の薬でもありません。

それなのに国連の人権報告書に
そう書いてあるんです。

なので、ここで特に何の話をするかと言うと
日本軍慰安所で日本軍たちは
女性たちの人権を蹂躙する方法として性病検査をして
厳格に管理したと!?

女性たちの人権を蹂躙したと書いてあるんです!
ここに!!

これ、何ですか?

これ一体どうして!?私は国連でこんな報告書が採択されて
これで日本に責任を問う!?

全く理解できません。
私は日本の側に立つという気持ちではありません。

私は実際、高校を卒業して
柳周鉉の大河小説「朝鮮総督府」を5冊読んで

太平洋戦争731部隊5冊を読んで
その当時私は日本は○○奴だと思ったんです。

日本は想定するものじゃないとそのように考えたんです。

その後、私は歴史専門家だし、漢文学専門なので
一つ一つじっくり調べたら、
これは完全に全部嘘だったんです。

そしてこのクマラスワミ報告書がそれこそ
ただ一つ性奴隷制
日本軍慰安婦は性奴隷だ。これを前提として

そこに全てのことを無理やり合わせたんです。
私はこう考えます。

このクマラスワミと言う人は本当に悪い人だ!

ここにこの資料を提供した韓国の
挺対協のユン・ジョンオク(尹貞玉)氏と
シン・ヘス(申蕙秀)氏、イヒョジェ氏は
この人たちは本当に天罰を受けなければなりません。

ところがこういう人たちが大韓民国で
どういう待遇を受けているかご存じですか?

大韓民国の女性賞、女性に関した賞は
皆全部持っていったことでしょう。

これが今の大韓民国の現実です。

これを見ながらそれこそ
大韓民国は嘘の天国だ

嘘の天国がアメリカの議会、ヨーロッパの議会
国連の人権委員会まで犯した

物凄い実力の嘘の専門家達の集団だ

このように考えます。

これを私たちは必ず
正していかなければなりません。

(そうです。拍手)
15:25

**********************************************

<参考動画>
youtube   채널fujichan
韓国日本大使館前 反日銅像撤去デモ  動画一覧
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0HuFE2BU3LsruQCDUUcSlg/videos

第43会期 国連人権理事会 韓国政府に対する抗議声明

2020年6月16日、ジュネーブ国連人権理事会43会期にて、国連の協議資格を持ったNGOである「新しい歴史教科書をつくる会」と「国際キャリア支援協会」の合同ステートメントとして、韓国政府の度重なる慰安婦問題に関する2015年の合意違反に対して人権理事会に韓国政府への勧告を出すように要請しました。

この合同ステートメントはiRICH国際歴史論戦研究所を中心に、国際キャリア支援協会、慰安婦の真実国民運動、なでしこアクション、論破プロジェクト、テキサス親父日本事務局、真実の種を育てる会などの賛同の元に行われました。

<日本語訳>

副会長、有り難う御座います。

「慰安婦問題は。最終的かつ不可逆的に解決された」と明記された日韓両国間の合意にも関わらず、韓国のカン・ギョンファ外相は3年連続でこの会議に慰安婦問題を提起しました。

日本は、2015年の合意に基づいて、慰安婦を支援するために納税者のお金から約930万ドルを支払いました。しかし、それは使途不明となっています。

先月、元慰安婦の1人でありイ・ヨンス氏が記者会見を開き、かつて韓国政府とその市民から資金提供を受けていた慰安婦支援団体の代表であった「ユン・ミヒャンに搾取された」と述べました。

彼女によると、ユン・ミヒャンは30年間に渡って多額の寄付金を集めましたが、その寄付金は元慰安婦にはほとんど使われず、自分の不動産を購入するために使われていたということです。

彼女はまた「慰安婦は性奴隷ではなかった」と述べました。

最近、韓国政府は皮肉にも「歴史の修正」を違法にする決議を可決した。

歴史とは、裁判所が判断するものではありません。

副議長、

この理事会に以下の韓国政府への勧告を要請します。

1. 金銭的利益のために、そして日本叩きをするために高齢女性を虐待することをやめよ。

2. 日本政府から受け取った寄付金の使途を開示せよ。

3. 捏造物語や嘘に基づいた、日本叩きをやめよ。そして、

4. 日本と韓国の間の2国間合意を反故にするのをやめよ。

副会長、ありがとうございました。

< 原文 >
The foreign minister of ROK Kang Kyung Wha has brought the comfort women issue to this council for 3 consecutive years despite the bilateral agreement signed between Japan and ROK, stipulating “the comfort women issue has been resolved finally and irreversibly.”

Japan paid 9.3 million dollars from taxpayer’s money to support comfort women when the agreement was made in 2015. However, the spending of this money is unaccounted for.

The last month, one of the former comfort women named Lee Yong-soo said at a press conference, “I have been exploited by Yun Mi-hyang, who used to be a leader of a comfort women supporting organization funded by ROK government and its citizens.

According to her, Yun Mi-hyang collected a huge amount of donations for 30 years but the donations were hardly used for former comfort women but used to purchase several real estate properties for her own use.

She also said that comfort women were not sex-slaves. Recently, the ROK government ironically passed legislation to make it illegal to “revise history.” History is not something that is judged by the court.

We request this council to recommend that the ROK government

1. stop abusing elderly women for monetary benefit,

2. disclose the use of funds provided by the Japanese government,

3. stop Japan bashing based on falsified stories and lies, and

4. stop violating the bilateral agreement between Japan and ROK.

映画「主戦場」上映禁止を求める要請

映画「主戦場」上映禁止を求める要請として以下のメッセージを関係各所に送りました。

****************************************************
原文英語版 】【 英語 PDF 】 【 日本語 PDF

令和2年( 2020年)6月

発信: 藤岡信勝(元東京大学教授)
藤木俊一(会社経営、ジャーナリスト)
山本優美子(Japanese Women for Justice and Peace代表)

宛先:    関係者の皆様(映画「主戦場」の上映を予定している又は過去に上映した大学・施設など)

主題: 映画「主戦場」の上映禁止を求める要請

1. 要請

私たちは、映画「主戦場」の上映を予定または検討している皆様に映画を上映しないよう要請します。既に上映した皆様には、二度と上映しないよう要請します。

2. 被害者

私たちは、出崎幹根氏が学術研究を装って作成・監督した映画「主戦場Shusenjo— The Main Battleground of the Comfort Women Issue」の被害者です。彼の実態は詐欺師だったのです。私たちは、彼を信義則違反と詐欺行為と人権侵害で裁判所に訴えています。

被害者は私たちだけではありません。櫻井よしこ氏(ジャーナリスト、国家基本問題研究所代表)、杉田水脈氏(衆議院議員)、加瀬英明氏(外交評論家)、ケント・ギルバート氏(ジャーナリスト、米国加州弁護士)、トニー・マラーノ氏(ジャーナリスト)も同映画の被害者で、合計8名います。

3. 経緯

3.1. 出崎氏は上智大学の大学院生だったとき、いわゆる「慰安婦問題」を卒業プロジェクトとして研究していました。2016年5月~2017年2月にかけて、彼は私たち8名の意見を聞くために、個別にインタビューを要請しました。そのとき、インタビューの撮影も要請しました。

3.2. その際、出崎氏が私たちに説明した卒業プロジェクトの内容はほぼ同じで、山本優美子宛のメールは以下のとおりです。

「大学院生として、私には、インタビューさせて頂く方々を、尊敬と公平さをもって紹介する倫理的義務があります。」

「これは学術研究でもあるため、一定の学術的基準と許容点を満たさなければならず、偏ったジャーナリズム的なものになることはありません。」

「よって、公正性かつ中立性を守りながら、今回のドキュメンタリーを作成し、卒業プロジェクトとして大学に提出する予定です。」

3.3. 出崎氏による要請の骨子は、(1)倫理的義務を果たす、(2)学術的基準を満たす、(3)公正性と中立性を保持するドキュメンタリーを作成し、および(4)卒業プロジェクトとして大学に提出する、でした。彼の説明を額面どおりに受け止めた私たちは、要請に賛同しました。

3.4.  インタビューと撮影は上智大学の教室などで行われ、出崎氏は卒業プロジェクトチームの大学院生と一緒でした。彼は上智大学の校章の名刺を持ち、上智大学のレターヘッドの便箋を使っていました。その際、撮影に同意する書面が用意され、私たちは、その同意書に署名しました。私たちの何人かは著名なジャーナリストであるにも関わらず、彼のために無償でインタビューを受諾しました。

4. 商業映画作成と上映

インタビュー以来2年ほど、出崎氏から私たちへの連絡はありませんでした。ところが、2018年9月、出崎氏は自分が監督・製作した映画「主戦場」を10月に韓国の釜山映画祭で上映するとのメールを私たちに送ってきました。2019年2月には、4月から日本各地の映画館で入場料を取り、映画を一般公開するとのメールを送ってきました。卒業プロジェクトを学術研究の発表だと信じていた私たちにとって、この通知は青天の霹靂でした。

5. 信義則違反と詐欺行為の事例

 5.1. 出崎氏は映画公式サイトのDirector’s Notesで「Being a male, Japanese-American director allowed me access to interview Japanese nationalists, who regarded me as an unbiased, Japanese, rational male.(私が日系米国人男性の監督だったので、日本のナショナリストたちは偏りのない日本の理性的な男性として私の取材を受け入れました。)」と記述しています。さらに彼は映画の中で私たちをナショナリストと呼んでいます。インタビュー要請のメールにもインタビュー時にも、彼は私たちを国家主義者とか国粋主義者と呼んではいません。また、映画が公開されるまで、藤岡信勝は出崎氏が日系米国人であったことさえ知りませんでした。私たちは監督が日系米国人だからではなく、学生の研究だからインタビューに協力したのです。

5.2. 映画公開後に判明したのは、出崎氏が当初から卒業プロジェクトだけではなく、一般公開する映画を作る意図を持っていたことです。在学中にも関わらずクラウドファンディングを立ち上げて映画用資金を集めていました。また、人を対象とする研究として受けるべき上智大学院の研究倫理審査も受けていませんでした。彼は本来の目的を隠して私たちとのインタビューを済ませたのです。

5.3.  私たちを侮辱しようとする映画のスキームは露骨に挑発的なのです。映画は私たちをまるで犯罪人のように大写しで並べ、私たちを侮辱するテロップを流します。インタビュー場面を意図的に編集し直し、私たちの印象を悪くしています。出崎氏は意図的に、かつ、一方的に、私たちを「ライト・ウィング、リビジョニスト、ナショナリスト、レイシスト、ファシスト、セクシスト」と呼んでいます。

5.4. 上記3.3.段落で述べましたが、私たちへのインタビュー要請時の核心部分(倫理的義務、学術的基準、公正性と中立性や卒業プロジェクト)は、映画のどこにも見られません。

6. 民事訴訟、刑事訴訟と上智大学不正研究調査

6.1. 上映開始後、私たちは出崎氏と配給会社に上映中止を要請しました。彼らが要請を拒否したので、私たちはやむなく裁判に訴えました。現在、私たちは民事訴訟で出崎氏と配給会社に信義則違反に基づく上映停止と損害賠償金を求めています。刑事訴訟では、著作権侵害罪と詐欺罪で告訴が受理され、これから審理が行われます。

6.2. 上智大学に関しては、私たちは出崎氏の指導教授であった中野晃一教授宛てに研究参加同意撤回書を送りました。中野晃一教授は、出崎氏の卒業プロジェクトの責任者であるにも関わらず、撤回書を無視し、大学の研究倫理規定を守ろうとしませんでした。それどころか自ら映画に出演し、映画の宣伝もしています。私たちは上智大学に対し、出崎氏と中野教授の研究不正行為を訴え、調査を申し入れました。現在大学は委員会を立ち上げて調査中です。

7.  言論と表現の自由弾圧に対する反論

7.1. 出崎氏は各地の上映会に監督として登場し、聴衆に対し、私たちの訴訟が、彼の言論と表現の自由を弾圧していると糾弾しています。善意の研究協力者を当初から騙そうとした意図こそ、言論と表現の自由を踏みにじる行為なのです。慰安婦問題を扱う映画が両論を提供するのは当然ですが、その提示手段は公平性や中立性を欠き、学術研究の名に値するものではありません。

7.2. 上智大学大学院の研究倫理規定を無視して作成された映画が上映され続けることは、上智大学の社会的信用の失墜と、学術研究全体への信頼の崩壊へと繋がります。「不当な日本批判を正す学者の会 AACGCJ ( https://aacgcj.org/ )」は、55名の学者連名で「学者の声明:映画『主戦場』 に係る上智大学の研究倫理を問う」を発表しました。

学者の声明:映画『主戦場』に係る上智大学の研究倫理を問う
https://bit.ly/3fDBGjB

Scholars’ Statement: We Question Sophia University’s Academic Integrity regarding the Film Shusenjo
https://bit.ly/3bkr1XL

7.3. 2019年4月の公開以降、映画は日本各地の映画館や公共施設、北米・欧州各地の大学や施設で上映され続けています。現在はコロナウィルスの影響で上映会は止まっています。しかし上映再開は、私たちに対する信義則違反のみならず、真理を探求する研究者や一般大衆を一方的に洗脳する悪質な手段になります。この映画こそ、言論と表現の自由を冒涜するものなのです。上映を許してはなりません。

**********************************************************

<参考>

JAPAN Forward   Earl Kinmonth  June 4, 2020
Court Battle Over Comfort Women Film Taints Japanese University’s Research Ethics Record
https://japan-forward.com/court-battle-over-comfort-women-film-taints-japanese-universitys-research-ethics-record/

なでしこアクション
Shusenjo— The Main Battleground of the Comfort Women Issue (film)
http://nadesiko-action.org/?p=14416

映画『主戦場』について
http://nadesiko-action.org/?p=14441

なでしこアクション
About Unfair and Biased Film “SHUSENJYO : The Main Battleground of The Comfort Women”
http://nadesiko-action.org/?p=13506

不公正で偏向に満ちた映画 「主戦場」について
http://nadesiko-action.org/?p=13505

Letter to Pope Francis  November 20, 2019
https://bit.ly/35a3F5m

ローマ教皇への感謝と嘆願の手紙
https://bit.ly/35RSLBN

JAPAN Foward July 4, 2019
YouTuber Resorts to Misrepresentation in Making Documentary on Comfort Women Issue
http://japan-forward.com/youtuber-resorts-to-misrepresentation-in-making-documentary-on-comfort-women-issue/

Monthly Hanada Plus 2019.07.09
A Nasty Trick ‘The Main Battleground of The Comfort Women Issue’
https://hanada-plus.jp/posts/2166

Urgent request for a ban to screen the film Shusenjo – The Main Battleground of the Comfort Women Issue, directed by Mikine Dezaki

Japanese日本語版 】【 English PDF 】 【 Japanese日本語 PDF

June, 2020

From:    FUJIOKA Nobukatsu, former professor, University of Tokyo
FUJIKI Shunichi, corporate owner and journalist
YAMAMOTO Yumiko, President of the Japanese Women for Justice and Peace

To:         To whom it may concern

Subj:     Urgent request for a ban to screen the film Shusenjo – The Main Battleground of the Comfort Women Issue, directed by Mikine Dezaki

  1. Urgent Request

We, the originators of this letter, sincerely request those who plan to screen the film to the public cancel the plan.  We also cordially request those who have already screened it to the public shelve any plan to screen it again in future.

  1. Victims

We are victims of the film directed and produced by Mikine Dezaki who presented himself in the guise of a student researcher.  He was, in fact, a con artist.  We have already filed suits in court against him for breach of good faith, fraud, and human rights violation.

There are five other victims: SAKURAI Yoshiko (journalist and President of the Japan Institute for National Fundamentals), Congressperson SUGITA Mio, KASE Hideaki (diplomatic analyst), Kent Gilbert (journalist and attorney-at-law in California), and Tony Marano (journalist).

  1. Background

3.1.        While he was taking on the Comfort Women issue as a postgraduate study at Sophia University, Dezaki individually contacted eight of us from May 2016 through February 2017 to request for our opinions on the issue.  His request included videotaping each interview session.

3.2.        Dezaki’s explanation of the postgraduate study to each of us was similar in content.  A request e-mailed to YAMAMOTO Yumiko is provided below:

“As a graduate student, I have an ethical obligation to present the people I interview with respect and fairness.”

“This is an academic research.  It must meet certain academic standards and expectations, which would prevent it from becoming a biased journalistic piece.”

“So, I will produce it with equitability and neutrality.  I am going to submit it to the University as a graduation work.”

3.3.        The gist of his explanation above consists of (1) performing the ethical obligation, (2) adhering to the academic standards, (3) producing a documentary that ensures equity and neutrality principles, and (4) submitting it as a postgraduate work to the university.  All of us took his words literally.

3.4.        Dezaki held videotaped interviews at a Sophia classroom and other places with the help of his postgraduate associates.  He presented us his name cards printed with the university emblem.  He also used the Sophia letterhead stationery.  He then provided us with a letter of consent for videotaping the interview, on which we signed.  All of us, for the sake of his endeavor, agreed to the interview without any charge even though some of us are renowned journalists.

  1. Production of a commercial film and its public release

We heard nothing from Dezaki for about two years since the completion of the interviews.  It was September 2018 when he sent us e-mail that the film Shusenjo he had directed and produced would be screened at the Pusan Film Festival in South Korea in October.  He e-mailed us again in February 2019 that his film would be released in movie theaters in Japan from April.  The public release of the film was the last thing we had in mind because we believed until then that he was committed to his postgraduate work.

  1. Some examples of his breach of good faith and fraud

5.1.        Dezaki entered the following in the film’s Director’s Notes: “Being a male, Japanese-American director allowed me access to interview Japanese nationalists, who regarded me as an unbiased, Japanese, rational male.”  He referred to us as nationalists in the film.  He never addressed us as nationalists neither in the first e-mail requests for interview nor during each interview session.  Nobukatsu Fujioka did not know until the film’s release Dezaki was an American of Japanese descent.  All of us cooperated with him because he was engaged in a postgraduate work.  His nationality was not any concern of us.

5.2.        What we found out after the film release is that Dezaki had been committed to making the postgraduate work a commercial film from the beginning.  While being a graduate student, he operated crowdfunding to fund his film-making venture.  He did not undergo Sophia University’s research ethics committee review.  He manipulated interviews with us under a false pretense.

5.3.        The film’s scheme to disgrace us is overtly provocative.  Shown in the film are our closeup clips with insulting tickers as if we are criminals in police lineup.  The interview clips are so edited as to give each of us a bad impression.  Dezaki intentionally and unilaterally called us the Rightists, Revisionists, Nationalists, Racists, Fascists, and Sexists.

5.4.        None of the core values such as the ethical obligation, the academic standards, equity and neutrality, and a postgraduate work expressed in his interview requests are even hinted in the entire film.

  1. Civil and criminal actions and the establishment of a university review board

6.1.        We requested Dezaki and his film distributer not to release it in public venues.  Because of their refusal of our request, we had to resort to legal procedures.  Two counts in the civil action are Dezaki and his distributer breached good faith and intentionally caused damage upon us.  Two counts in the criminal action are their copyright infringement and fraud.  Hearings and trials are being held.

6.2.        Because Professor NAKANO Koichi of Sophia University was in the position to supervise Dezaki’s postgraduate work, we mailed the professor a letter to officially retract our consent to the videotaped clips.  Despite his responsibility, NAKANO ignored the letter and did not adhere to the research ethics provisions of the university.  We demanded the university authorities to investigate Dezaki’s work and Nakano’s act of academic malfeasance.  The university already launched a board to investigate the cases.

  1. Counterarguments to Dezaki’s claim of suppression of freedom of speech

7.1.        Dezaki has been promoting a film tour not only in Japan but also in foreign countries.  He as the film director personally addressed the audience each time that our civil and criminal actions are strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP), i.e., we are attempting to suppress freedom of speech.  We claim it is Dezaki who violated the principle because he had deceived us, cooperators of goodwill for his academic work.  It is fair for the film to present pros and cons regarding the Comfort Women issue.  The methods of presentation he employed in it are, by no means, equitable or neutral and, therefore, the film is not worth an academic research work in its essence.

7.2.        Any further attempt to screen the film for public consumption will tarnish the prestige of Sophia University and bring about erosion of the academic research integrity.  The Academics’ Alliance for Correcting Groundless Criticisms of Japan (AACGCJ), with fifty-five academics in their joint names, already issued a statement to question the university’s research ethics.

Scholars’ Statement: We Question Sophia University’s Academic Integrity regarding the Film “Shusenjo”
https://bit.ly/3bkr1XL

7.3.        The film as mentioned earlier has been released not only at movie theaters in Japan but also in colleges and facilities in Europe and the U.S.  COVID-19 has temporarily stopped Dezaki’s venture for now.  The film tour, once resumed, would become an unforgiven tool to brainwash the public at large as well as bona-fide researchers for truth, not to mention the breach of good faith imposed upon us.  It is this film that blasphemes freedom of speech.  The film should not be shown to the public.

*********************************************************
References

JAPAN Forward   Earl Kinmonth  June 4, 2020
Court Battle Over Comfort Women Film Taints Japanese University’s Research Ethics Record
https://japan-forward.com/court-battle-over-comfort-women-film-taints-japanese-universitys-research-ethics-record/

Japanese Women for Justice and Peace
Shusenjo— The Main Battleground of the Comfort Women Issue (film)
http://nadesiko-action.org/?p=14416

Japanese Women for Justice and Peace
About Unfair and Biased Film “SHUSENJYO : The Main Battleground of The Comfort Women”
http://nadesiko-action.org/?p=13506

Letter to Pope Francis dated November 20, 2019
https://bit.ly/35a3F5m

JAPAN Foward July 4, 2019
YouTuber Resorts to Misrepresentation in Making Documentary on Comfort Women Issue
http://japan-forward.com/youtuber-resorts-to-misrepresentation-in-making-documentary-on-comfort-women-issue/

Monthly Hanada Plus 2019.07.09
A Nasty Trick ‘The Main Battleground of The Comfort Women Issue’
https://hanada-plus.jp/posts/2166